Resolution Statement – 08847-20 Patel v Mail Online
Summary of Complaint
1. Emma Patel and Kerttu Patel complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and
Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Solicitor and her 64-year-old mother avoid jail for bombarding 30-year-old's
banker ex with messages and calls in joint stalking campaign after he dumped
her”, published on 21 January 2020.
2. The article reported on a court case, which resulted in
the conviction of a woman and her mother after both pleaded guilty to
harassment by stalking. The headline of the article stated that both women had
“bombard[ed]” the daughter’s “banker ex […] with messages and calls in [a]
joint stalking campaign.” The article then went on to report that the daughter
“tracked him down to a rehab retreat in South Africa” and had “inundated [her
ex-partner] with phone calls after the break-up of their short relationship.”
In addition, the article reported that the daughter had been “seen outside [her
ex-partner’s] family home.” The article reported on the sentencing of both
women, stating that “they were both also ordered to carry out a 20-day
community order” in addition to receiving suspended jail sentences. The article
included photographs of the woman and her mother. It also referred to the law
firm which the daughter previously worked for, the area where both women lived,
and the value of their home.
3. The complainants, the mother and daughter referred to in
the article, said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. They
said that it was inaccurate to refer the “banker ex” as such, as the daughter
was still in a relationship with him, and that the headline’s reference to a
“joint stalking campaign” was exaggerated and therefore inaccurate. In
addition, the complainants disputed: that they had “bombard[ed]” the daughter’s
alleged ex-partner with text messages and phone calls, as the alleged
ex-partner responded to messages and calls; that the complainants had
“inundated” the alleged ex-partner with phone calls, as they said that in fact
it was the ex-partner who had continued to contact the daughter; that the
daughter had “tracked” the man to South Africa when he “refused to return her
calls”, as he had informed her that he was going there and had never refused to
return her calls; and that the daughter had been seen outside the man’s family
home, as the complainants said he had no family home. In addition, both
complainants said that they had not been “ordered to carry out a 20-day
community order” as reported by the article.
4. The complainants also said that the article breached Clause
2. The complainants said that the photographs included in the article had been
taken from a private Facebook page without their consent; that the article
should not have referred to the daughter’s previous place of employment as she
considered this to be private information; and that they had not provided
information about their home which appeared in the article -including its
approximate location and value - to the publication and therefore that the
inclusion of this information breached their privacy.
5. The publication did not accept that the Code had been
breached. With regards to Clause 1, it emphasised that the article was a report
of court proceedings, and that it considered that the article represented an
accurate report of the court proceedings against the complainants. It said
that, as part of the complainants’ mitigation, it had been heard in court that
the complainants were seeking to “rekindle” the daughter’s relationship with
her partner; as such it did not consider that it was inaccurate to describe the
“banker ex” as such, where it was heard in court that the relationship had
ended. It also said that it did not consider that it was inaccurate to report
that the complainants had carried out a “joint stalking campaign” and that the
complainants had “inundated” the daughter’s alleged ex-partner with calls and
text messages, as it considered this to be a reasonable description of events,
where the complainants had pleaded guilty to harassment by stalking. The
newspaper also said that it had been heard in court that the daughter had gone
to South Africa to “rekindle” her relationship after her alleged ex-partner
“refused to return her calls”, and that she had had been seen outside his
family home. While the newspaper acknowledged that the complainants had not
been “ordered to carry out a 20-day community order”, it had approached the
court who informed it that the complainants had received a “20-day
Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR)” and as such it said that there was
no significant inaccuracy in need of correction.
6. With regards to the alleged breaches of Clause 2, the
publication did not accept that the Clause had been breached. It said that all
of the photographs included in the article were publicly viewable on the
complainants’ social media accounts and were therefore in the public domain. It
also said that the daughter’s previous workplace had been heard at previous
legal proceedings, and as such that this information was also in the public
domain. As the information was in the public domain, the publication said that
it did not fail to respect the privacy of the complainants, as the information in
the article was not private.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
8. Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled
to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and
correspondence, including digital communications
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's
reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's
own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material
complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
Mediated Outcome
9. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
10. The publication offered to remove the article.
11. The complainants said that this would resolve the matter
to his satisfaction.
12. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 08/06/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/09/2020
Back to ruling listing